nifty@lemmy.world to Comic Strips@lemmy.world · edit-27 months agoLive by verification, die by verificationlemmy.worldimagemessage-square94fedilinkarrow-up1390arrow-down126file-text
arrow-up1364arrow-down1imageLive by verification, die by verificationlemmy.worldnifty@lemmy.world to Comic Strips@lemmy.world · edit-27 months agomessage-square94fedilinkfile-text
minus-squaredudinax@programming.devlinkfedilinkarrow-up5arrow-down2·7 months agoHow about a kind of Pascal’s wager for science? Either the axioms of science are correct, or reality isn’t empirically testable. In the latter case, believing in the the truth won’t get you any farther than a false belief in science.
minus-squareafraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·7 months agoWhat are the “axioms of science”? List them
minus-squarem0darnlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·7 months agoI’m not the person you’re replying to, nor an expert but wouldn’t they be things like: There is a reality which behaves according to certain principles within time. Humans experience reality through flawed faculties, but experiences can be aggregated in ways which reduce or eliminate the impact of those flaws. The more thoroughly those flaws are eliminated from the aggregate, the more reliably predictions can be made about the principles that govern reality.
minus-squareafraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·edit-27 months agoThose are really just conclusions we have reached not parts we started with.
minus-squarem0darnlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-27 months agoI just said that evidence can be collected and interpreted to make reliable predictions. Isn’t that what science is?
How about a kind of Pascal’s wager for science?
Either the axioms of science are correct, or reality isn’t empirically testable. In the latter case, believing in the the truth won’t get you any farther than a false belief in science.
What are the “axioms of science”? List them
I’m not the person you’re replying to, nor an expert but wouldn’t they be things like:
There is a reality which behaves according to certain principles within time.
Humans experience reality through flawed faculties, but experiences can be aggregated in ways which reduce or eliminate the impact of those flaws.
The more thoroughly those flaws are eliminated from the aggregate, the more reliably predictions can be made about the principles that govern reality.
Those are really just conclusions we have reached not parts we started with.
I just said that evidence can be collected and interpreted to make reliable predictions. Isn’t that what science is?